Winchester City Council (202221030)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221030

Winchester City Council

28 February 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about their neighbour’s CCTV cameras.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat. The landlord is a local authority.
4. In, or around, September 2022 the resident raised their concerns about their neighbour’s CCTV with the landlord.
5. On 19 February 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. They said:
   1. The landlord had known since September 2022 that their neighbour was illegally operating CCTV cameras and it was causing them alarm and distress.
   2. They had contacted the landlord several times about the matter but their concerns were ignored.
   3. Their neighbours had recently installed a 4th camera.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 March 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing the response. It explained:
   1. Since the resident had initially raised their concerns, it had spoken to their neighbour on 3 occasions. During a recent visit it had raised the concern about a 4th camera but could confirm the ‘new’ camera was just an existing camera which the neighbour had moved.
   2. It did not consider the neighbour’s reasons for having CCTV was unreasonable or in breach of relevant legislation. It was also not a breach of the neighbour’s lease.
   3. It had reminded the neighbour of the requirements and obligations when using domestic CCTV.
   4. It had taken all actions available to it under relevant legislation and there was nothing further it could do.
   5. The resident could raise their concerns directly with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
7. The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure on 3 April 2023. They said they did not accept the landlord’s apology for the delay. They stated the landlord had not addressed or considered the ICO’s code of practice. They asked the landlord to provide copies of the footage recorded by their neighbour and justifiable reasons for it being collected. They also asked for reassurance that the neighbour was not forwarding the footage to third parties and for a copy of the lease for the neighbour’s property.
8. The landlord issued its final response on 18 April 2023. It said:
   1. It had investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns within a reasonable time. It had provided the resident with advice when they had initially contacted it. It had met with the neighbours 3 times to discuss the resident’s concerns and had updated the resident with its findings.
   2. It had apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 1 response. It noted that the resident had stated they did not accept this.
   3. It still did not consider the neighbour’s use of CCTV was illegal or in breach of their lease. It advised the neighbour was a ‘data controller’ under the Data Protection Act 2018 and was responsible for complying with the relevant legislation.
   4. As it was not the data controller for the footage recorded by the neighbour it could not provide copies or the information the resident had requested. It advised a copy of the lease could be obtained from the Land Registry.
   5. It had reminded the neighbour of their obligations. It would not be taking any further action. The resident was able to contact the ICO directly about their concerns.
9. On 20 May 2023 the resident escalated their complaint to this service. They stated the landlord had advised their neighbour to put up signs and that it had said the use of the CCTV was ‘reasonable’. They said they wanted, as an outcome to their complaint, for their neighbour to stop filming or re-position the cameras, for the landlord to remind the neighbours of their obligations when using CCTV, and for the landlord to pay them compensation for its handling of their concerns.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about their neighbour’s CCTV cameras

10. This service has been provided with limited evidence relating to the initial interactions between the resident and the landlord. The resident has not provided any evidence about what contact they had with the landlord before their formal complaint. The landlord has not provided copies of any correspondence it had with the resident before their complaint.
11. The only relevant piece of evidence is an internal email from the landlord. This was dated 10 October 2022 and is between a housing officer and the Home Ownership team. The email asks if the Home Ownership team has had a chance to look at the CCTV. It states the housing officer is due to go back to the resident to make them aware they need to report concerns to the ICO.
12. This email would suggest that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and was providing relevant advice to them. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to have taken.
13. Having made the resident aware that they would need to report any concerns about the neighbour’s CCTV to the ICO there is no evidence the landlord was obliged to take any further action. However, the landlord has provided evidence that it raised the resident’s concerns with the neighbour in early February 2023. This again suggests the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
14. Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint the landlord spoke to the neighbour again. While the landlord has not provided a record of this meeting, it has provided a copy of a follow up letter sent to the neighbour. This letter confirmed that the visit was a result of the resident stating that the neighbour had installed a 4th camera. It noted that the neighbour advised they only had 3 cameras (plus their video doorbell).
15. The letter also clearly set out that the neighbour was responsible for the storing and use of information collected through their cameras. It advised they must ensure they comply with the relevant legislation and provided a number of recommendations for them to consider. It also provided details of where the neighbour could find further advice from the ICO and the government about domestic CCTV.
16. The landlord’s visit to the neighbour and the follow up letter were both reasonable steps for it to have taken.
17. In both its stage 1 and final response the landlord explained that it did not consider the neighbour’s use of CCTV was in breach of their lease. It also advised that it considered the reasons the neighbour had given for installing CCTV were reasonable. While it would be for the ICO to reach a determination on whether the neighbour’s CCTV complied with data protection legislation, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain why it would not be taking any action.
18. It is accepted that the resident believes the landlord should have taken action against their neighbour. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to have explained there was nothing further it could do and to have advised that the resident would need to approach the ICO to take the matter further.
19. It was also reasonable for the landlord to explain why they could not provide copies of the footage captured by the neighbour or assurances about how the footage might be used.
20. While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation, there is insufficient evidence on which it could be concluded that the landlord had not taken their concerns seriously or had not acted reasonably when deciding to take no further action.
21. For the reasons set out above, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about their neighbour’s CCTV.

The landlord’s complaint handling

22. The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and issue its response within a 10 further working days. It also stated it would issue its final response within 10 working days of a stage 2 escalation request.
23. The resident’s stage 1 complaint appears to have been delivered by hand and was stamped as received on 20 February 2023. While the landlord has not provided evidence of an acknowledgement, the Ombudsman considers the acceptance of a hand-delivered complaint would be sufficient acknowledgement.
24. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 27 working days after it had received the complaint. This was outside its policy and was not appropriate.
25. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 6 April 2023 and advised it had received it that day. It issued its final response 8 working days later. This was within its policy and was appropriate.
26. While the detriment caused to the resident by the stage 1 delay would appear to have been minor, the time the landlord took to issue the response was significantly longer than its stated timescale. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord did provide an apology for the delay but that the resident did not accept it. The landlord was aware of this when dealing with the stage 2 escalation but there is no evidence it considered whether it would be appropriate to provide further redress. This was not appropriate.
27. On this basis, the Ombudsman considers there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
28. The Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its service failure. This is in line with its policy on compensation.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about their neighbour’s CCTV.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

31. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination pay the resident compensation of £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
32. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.